Hi Guest:
Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

A ban on smoking in restaurants is being credited for a precipitous drop in hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory problems.

The findings, published in Tuesday’s edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, are based on data from the City of Toronto.

The research shows that, in the three-year period after anti-smoking bylaws were implemented in restaurants, hospitalizations for heart conditions fell 39 per cent and for respiratory conditions 32 per cent. The number of heart attacks also declined 17 per cent.

“Healthy public policy has to be based on evidence and studies like this one validate the use of legislation,” said one of the study's authors, Dr. Alisa Naiman, a fellow at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.

She stressed, however, that new rules were not solely responsible for the dramatic health dividends that came about.

The study is based on an analysis of hospital admission data for the 10-year period between 1996 and 2006 that spans a period before and after a smoking ban was implemented in Toronto. Researchers also looked at data from two other jurisdictions where there were no smoking bylaws – Halton in suburban Toronto and Thunder Bay in Northern Ontario – for comparative purposes.

The City of Toronto introduced controls on public smoking in three distinct phases: In 1999, it required all workplaces to be smoke-free; in 2001, smoking was banned in all restaurants and; in 2004, the ban was extended to bars.

The research shows that during the first phase, hospitalization rates barely changed, likely because most workplaces were already smoke-free.

But when the ban on smoking in restaurants was introduced, the number of hospitalizations for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions dropped, almost overnight.

When smoking was banned in bars, the drop in hospitalizations was, again, modest.

“I think this reflects the fact that a lot more people go to restaurants than bars,” Dr. Naiman said.

While hospital admissions dropped sharply after no-smoking rules took effect in Toronto restaurants, the rate of admissions for heart attacks jumped by almost 15 per cent in Halton and Thunder Bay, while hospital admissions fell a more modest 3.4 per cent for cardiovascular conditions and 13.5 per cent for respiratory conditions.

Dr. Naiman said this shows the impact of legislation but also serves as a reminder that during the period studied, 1996 to 2006, there were other important policy changes. Those include increases in tobacco taxes, new advertising rules for tobacco products, graphic warnings added to cigarette packages and increased awareness about the dangers of smoking, and second-hand smoke in particular, not to mention non-legislative changes such as improvements in the treatment and management of chronic health conditions like asthma and angina.

“Legislation is just one part of the puzzle, but it’s an important part,” Dr. Naiman said.

Dr. Richard Stanwick, chief medical health officer for the Vancouver Island Health Authority, said the impact of smoking bans is seen not only in the statistics but on the ground.

Shortly after Victoria introduced a smoking ban in restaurants in 1999, he said, “there was a reduced need for cardiologists – we actually needed one less.”

Dr. Stanwick said there is a lot of other anecdotal evidence of the benefits of restricting smoking, but ultimately it is a quality-of-life issue. “Smoking and second-hand smoke cripples and disables people, often in their key productive years,” he said.

Dr. Stanwick believes legislation should be expanded and the next frontier is banning smoking in cars where children are present, and in parks and on playgrounds.

In a commentary also published in today’s edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Dr. Alan Maryon-Davis of the department of primary care and public health sciences at King’s College in London, said the new research “adds to the growing body of evidence that legislation banning smoking can save lives, and that it begins to do so quickly.”

At the same time, he said, anti-smoking legislation raises the wider issue of how far government should go in using enforcement to improve public health.

“What is the optimal balance between laissez-faire-ism and nanny-state-ism when it comes to promoting health and preventing ill health?”

He said the role of health professionals should extend beyond treating the consequences of unhealthy behaviours such as smoking to advocate for prevention and legislation, but only where it is backed by sound evidence.

About six million Canadians are regular smokers, just over 21 per cent of the adult population.

Had a drag a few times at a party on sat night, but each time i had a drag, made me wish i didnt.

so i have a very slight craving generally associated to partying, beers, dope etc.

but the awesome thing is, i was smoking dope pretty much everytime i had a cigarette, now i have found im smoking LESS dope which is awesome considering in the past when i had attempted quitting, i always smoked more dope to offset.

Pretty sure you can't smoke within 10 metres of a doorway which is never enforced.

Click to expand...

HUGE!

Or the dipshits that smoke IN the doorway in the middle of winter because it's too cold to go 10 meters. I always report these people to security at the mall / store / whatever. I've never seen this law enforced pro-actively.

I'm in agreement with the sidewalk thing. Just today (twice actually) while out walking my kids (ruff ruff), one guy walking about a meter behind me lights up and I can smell it, look back and yep... so we stopped and waited for him to get about 20 feet ahead of me (was a case of the way the wind was blowing). Then we're walking past the corner store and a dude is lighting up on his way out - we walk right through his exhale (although admittedly I kinda like the smell of a cig when it's first lit.)

I do find however that a lot of people are very considerate when around children. More often than not people make an effort to go around a little further than normal. It's the select few that are completely ignorant and don't give a shit how their poison affects people around them.

with e-cigarettes, one could flick their imaginary ashes at little kids jogging and nobody would give a shit!
In fact, we'd all laugh, and pat the little ruffriders on the head, and say
"Don't smoke real cigs, kids"! now go get yerself a real job!" bhaahahaha....

A ban on smoking in restaurants is being credited for a precipitous drop in hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory problems.

The findings, published in Tuesday’s edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, are based on data from the City of Toronto.

The research shows that, in the three-year period after anti-smoking bylaws were implemented in restaurants, hospitalizations for heart conditions fell 39 per cent and for respiratory conditions 32 per cent. The number of heart attacks also declined 17 per cent.

“Healthy public policy has to be based on evidence and studies like this one validate the use of legislation,” said one of the study's authors, Dr. Alisa Naiman, a fellow at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.

She stressed, however, that new rules were not solely responsible for the dramatic health dividends that came about.

The study is based on an analysis of hospital admission data for the 10-year period between 1996 and 2006 that spans a period before and after a smoking ban was implemented in Toronto. Researchers also looked at data from two other jurisdictions where there were no smoking bylaws – Halton in suburban Toronto and Thunder Bay in Northern Ontario – for comparative purposes.

The City of Toronto introduced controls on public smoking in three distinct phases: In 1999, it required all workplaces to be smoke-free; in 2001, smoking was banned in all restaurants and; in 2004, the ban was extended to bars.

The research shows that during the first phase, hospitalization rates barely changed, likely because most workplaces were already smoke-free.

But when the ban on smoking in restaurants was introduced, the number of hospitalizations for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions dropped, almost overnight.

When smoking was banned in bars, the drop in hospitalizations was, again, modest.

“I think this reflects the fact that a lot more people go to restaurants than bars,” Dr. Naiman said.

While hospital admissions dropped sharply after no-smoking rules took effect in Toronto restaurants, the rate of admissions for heart attacks jumped by almost 15 per cent in Halton and Thunder Bay, while hospital admissions fell a more modest 3.4 per cent for cardiovascular conditions and 13.5 per cent for respiratory conditions.

Dr. Naiman said this shows the impact of legislation but also serves as a reminder that during the period studied, 1996 to 2006, there were other important policy changes. Those include increases in tobacco taxes, new advertising rules for tobacco products, graphic warnings added to cigarette packages and increased awareness about the dangers of smoking, and second-hand smoke in particular, not to mention non-legislative changes such as improvements in the treatment and management of chronic health conditions like asthma and angina.

“Legislation is just one part of the puzzle, but it’s an important part,” Dr. Naiman said.

Dr. Richard Stanwick, chief medical health officer for the Vancouver Island Health Authority, said the impact of smoking bans is seen not only in the statistics but on the ground.

Shortly after Victoria introduced a smoking ban in restaurants in 1999, he said, “there was a reduced need for cardiologists – we actually needed one less.”

Dr. Stanwick said there is a lot of other anecdotal evidence of the benefits of restricting smoking, but ultimately it is a quality-of-life issue. “Smoking and second-hand smoke cripples and disables people, often in their key productive years,” he said.

Dr. Stanwick believes legislation should be expanded and the next frontier is banning smoking in cars where children are present, and in parks and on playgrounds.

In a commentary also published in today’s edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Dr. Alan Maryon-Davis of the department of primary care and public health sciences at King’s College in London, said the new research “adds to the growing body of evidence that legislation banning smoking can save lives, and that it begins to do so quickly.”

At the same time, he said, anti-smoking legislation raises the wider issue of how far government should go in using enforcement to improve public health.

“What is the optimal balance between laissez-faire-ism and nanny-state-ism when it comes to promoting health and preventing ill health?”

He said the role of health professionals should extend beyond treating the consequences of unhealthy behaviours such as smoking to advocate for prevention and legislation, but only where it is backed by sound evidence.

About six million Canadians are regular smokers, just over 21 per cent of the adult population.

Click to expand...

Did you know the 98.58% of statistics are made up un the spot 86% of the time...to suit whatever perpose they want to pursue? 65% agree! because
MY Special task force said so. Lets all invest our interests in special interest groups we could achieve 78.2% failure.
my polls allready show a 69% dissagreement with all these figures.
50% agree that everything is bad.

Did you know the 98.58% of statistics are made up un the spot 86% of the time...to suit whatever perpose they want to pursue? 65% agree! because
MY Special task force said so. Lets all invest our interests in special interest groups we could achieve 78.2% failure.
my polls allready show a 69% dissagreement with all these figures.
50% agree that everything is bad.

Click to expand...

Click on the link and check out the graph in the article; hospitalization rates related to smoking bans - it is pretty impressive...

It's not a question of not understanding the consequences. Most smokers understand this. This is why many of us on here are have expressed the need to quit, but it is not as easy as one might think. The graph is from 1999 - 2006. It includes banning smoking from the workplace, restaurants and bars. Of course this would make a huge difference. I, for one, am glad of this. I don't want to go back to having smoking in restaurants and bars.

In the end you're pointing out the obvious. It's not like we don't realize this already.

as a runner, in the city, I've had people flick cigarettes into my chest because they didn't see me coming up behind them. they're all very apologetic about it, but c'mon man. not cool.

Click to expand...

If you're running in the city, you're just smoking on a tailpipe already. My ex used to run in the parks away from the streets. Much healthier. He is a non-smoker.

However, as someone who ran on the roads way before those statistics dropped (and my knees couldn't take the pavement), I have to question this. I never had a cigarette flicked onto me, and I passed so many smokers. Most smokers drop and squish in front of them.

The only hazard I had from smokers were those who wanted to throw them out into the street, but they usually would turn abruptly and walk to the end of the curb. Which was annoying to have happen suddenly. Never did I ever, in many years, have a cigarette flicked onto me.

In the end you're pointing out the obvious. It's not like we don't realize this already.

Click to expand...

Some do, some don't. My sister was a chain smoker who said her chronic bronchitis had nothing to do with her smoking, that she just had fragile lungs. It's only when she was forced to quit because of other health issues and her bronchitis cleared up completely that she acknowledged the cause and effect.
So it's nice to see numbers confirm the gut feel.
(And yes, I used to smoke.)

Your sis was in denial erika and I understand you're point. I do get bronchial asthma when I get colds and am under no illusion that the smokes aren't playing a part. One of my many varied reasons why I have to quit, and one of the reasons I tell my kids not to start.

I give them these stats, the cost (physical, psychological and financial). Surprisingly (or not), it's the financial which seems to strike them the most. I'd like to think that some of the stats account for the fact that, maybe, we have influenced our youth.

Unfortunately this is one of the most accepted addictions there is really.

I will quit when I am ready to do so, and can guarantee that I will not kill many many people in the process.

I make an effort not to smoke where others are about, and do in fact look behind me before I light up. Part of me is glad about the restaurant and bar bans as I spend considerably less on going out now. I rarely smoke at home, but when I do I smoke while literally sitting in my fireplace so that the smoke goes straight up.

I like planning what I will do with the vast fortune I will save when I eventually quit, but right now, I'm much more concerned with public safety.

Yeah, pretty much the same. I do not smoke in the house (Always go outside which cuts down a lot). Do not smoke in my car if there are non-smokers with me,.. and never near children. Although am itching to get this over with. So tough. I just don't want to kill a kid at work if I go cold turkey. I tried once, and it wasn't pretty.

My parents smoked everywhere with impunity including the house and car. On my French side, at Christmas, nearly every adult lit up inside, and you could see the smoke bellow out when opening the door. All us kids all grew up fine, and not one adult on my Father's side died of lung cancer.

I think we've now become a society of over-sensitive wusses.

Even things like paint or cleaning products get people fired up. I once used "Goo-be-gone" to remove a tough stain and my roommate freaked out on me, even though I had already opened every window. It's like everyone has developed Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome.